This is a little off the topic of our article directly, but still interesting.
There are six stages of object permanence.[7[[home#cite_note-6|]]] These are:
0–1 months: Reflex Schema Stage – Babies learn how the body can move and work. Vision is blurred and attention spans remain short through infancy. They aren't particularly aware of objects to know they have disappeared from sight. However, babies as young as 7 minutes old prefer to look at faces. The three primary achievements of this stage are: sucking, visual tracking, and hand closure.[8[[home#cite_note-Anderson-7|]]]
1-4 months: Primary Circular Reactions – Babies notice objects and start following their movements. They continue to look where an object was, but for only a few moments. They 'discover' their eyes, arms, hands and feet in the course of acting on objects. This stage is marked by responses to familiar images and sounds (including mother's face) and anticipatory responses to familiar events (such as opening the mouth for a spoon). The infant's actions become less reflexive and intentionality emerges.[8[[home#cite_note-Anderson-7|]]]
4-8 months: Secondary Circular Reactions – Babies will reach for an object that is partially hidden, indicating knowledge that the whole object is still there. If an object is completely hidden however the baby makes no attempt to retrieve it. The infant learns to coordinate vision and comprehension. Actions are intentional but the child tends to repeat similar actions on the same object. Novel behaviors are not yet imitated.[8[[home#cite_note-Anderson-7|]]]
8-12 months: Coordination of Secondary Circular Reactions – This is deemed the most important for the cognitive development of the child. At this stage the child understands causality and is goal directed. The very earliest understanding of object permanence emerges, as the child is now able to retrieve an object when its concealment is observed. This stage is associated with the classic [[/wiki/A-not-B_error|A-not-B error]]. After successfully retrieving a hidden object at one location (A), the child fails to retrieve it at a second location (B).[8[[home#cite_note-Anderson-7|]]]
12–18 months: Tertiary Circular Reaction – The child gains means-end knowledge and is able to solve new problems. The child is now able to retrieve an object when it is hidden several times within his or her view, but cannot locate it when it is outside their perceptual field.[8[[home#cite_note-Anderson-7|]]]
18–24 months: Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination – the child fully understands object permanence. They will not fall for A-not-B errors. Also, baby is able to understand the concept of items that are hidden in containers. If a toy is hidden in a matchbox then the matchbox put under a pillow and then, without the child seeing, the toy is slipped out of the matchbox and the matchbox then given to the child, the child will look under the pillow upon discovery that it is not in the matchbox. The child is able to develop a mental image, hold it in mind, and manipulate it to solve problems, including object permanence problems that are not based solely on perception. The child can now reason about where the object may be when invisible displacement occurs.[8[[home#cite_note-Anderson-7|]]]
In more recent years, the original Piagetian object permanence account has been challenged by a series of infant studies suggesting that much younger infants do have a clear sense that objects exist even when out of sight. Bower demonstrated object permanence in 3-month-olds.[9[[home#cite_note-8|]]][10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]] This goes against Piaget's coordination of secondary circular reactions stage because infants aren't supposed to understand that a completely hidden object until they are eight to twelve months old. The two studies below demonstrate this idea.
The first study showed infants a toy car that moved down an inclined track, disappeared behind a screen, and then reemerged at the other end, still on the track. The researchers created a "possible event" where a toy mouse was placed behind the tracks but was hidden by the screen as the car rolled by. Then, researchers created an "impossible event." In this situation, the toy mouse was placed on the tracks but was secretly removed after the screen was lowered so that the car seemed to go through the mouse. Also in the 1991 study the researchers used an experiment involving two differently sized carrots (one tall and one short) in order to test the infants response when the carrots would be moved behind a short wall.[10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]] The wall was specifically designed to make the short carrot disappear, as well as tested the infants for habituation patterns on the disappearance of the tall carrot behind the wall (impossible event).[10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]] Infants as young as 3½ months displayed greater stimulation toward the impossible event and much more habituation at the possible event. This indicated that they may have been surprised by the impossible event, which suggested they remembered not only that the toy mouse still existed (object permanence) but also its location. The same was true of the tall carrot in the second experiment. This research suggests that infants understand more about objects earlier than Piaget proposed.[1[[home#cite_note-Santrock-0|]]]
There are primarily four challenges to Piaget's framework:
Whether or not infants without disabilities actually demonstrate object permanence earlier than Piaget claimed.[11[[home#cite_note-Zsuzsa-10|]]]
There is disagreement about the relative levels of difficulty posed by the use of various types of covers and by different object positions.[12[[home#cite_note-Lucas-11|]]]
Controversy concerns whether or not object permanence can be achieved or measured without the motor acts that Piaget regarded as essential.[13[[home#cite_note-Moore-12|]]]
The nature of inferences that can be made from the A-not-B error has been challenged. Studies that have contributed to this discussion have examined the contribution of memory limitations, difficulty with spatial localisation, and difficulty in inhibiting the motor act of reaching to location A on the A-not-B error.[10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]]
One criticism of Piaget's theory is that culture and education exert stronger influences on a child's development than Piaget maintained. These factors depend on how much practice their culture provides in developmental processes, such as conversational skills.[1[[home#cite_note-Santrock-0|]]]
One of the most stressed points in this article is that even from a young age children will take into account someone's intention before naming an object. If they are told the item was made by accident then they are more likely to name the material it's made out of rather than what it represents. Toward the end of the article the authors raise the question of how children know to make sense of a creator's intent and end up relating it back to language and how adults give everything names. The reading from Bloom's book this week closely follows this article and elaborates on how autistic children struggle with these experiments because they dont how to understand someone else's intent when making an object.
Informative study:
http://www.iub.edu/~cogdev/labwork/geons.pdf
This is a little off the topic of our article directly, but still interesting.
There are six stages of object permanence.[7[[home#cite_note-6|]]] These are:
[[[/w/index.php?title=Object_permanence&action=edit§ion=3|edit]]] Contradicting evidence
In more recent years, the original Piagetian object permanence account has been challenged by a series of infant studies suggesting that much younger infants do have a clear sense that objects exist even when out of sight. Bower demonstrated object permanence in 3-month-olds.[9[[home#cite_note-8|]]][10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]] This goes against Piaget's coordination of secondary circular reactions stage because infants aren't supposed to understand that a completely hidden object until they are eight to twelve months old. The two studies below demonstrate this idea.The first study showed infants a toy car that moved down an inclined track, disappeared behind a screen, and then reemerged at the other end, still on the track. The researchers created a "possible event" where a toy mouse was placed behind the tracks but was hidden by the screen as the car rolled by. Then, researchers created an "impossible event." In this situation, the toy mouse was placed on the tracks but was secretly removed after the screen was lowered so that the car seemed to go through the mouse. Also in the 1991 study the researchers used an experiment involving two differently sized carrots (one tall and one short) in order to test the infants response when the carrots would be moved behind a short wall.[10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]] The wall was specifically designed to make the short carrot disappear, as well as tested the infants for habituation patterns on the disappearance of the tall carrot behind the wall (impossible event).[10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]] Infants as young as 3½ months displayed greater stimulation toward the impossible event and much more habituation at the possible event. This indicated that they may have been surprised by the impossible event, which suggested they remembered not only that the toy mouse still existed (object permanence) but also its location. The same was true of the tall carrot in the second experiment. This research suggests that infants understand more about objects earlier than Piaget proposed.[1[[home#cite_note-Santrock-0|]]]
There are primarily four challenges to Piaget's framework:
- Whether or not infants without disabilities actually demonstrate object permanence earlier than Piaget claimed.[11[[home#cite_note-Zsuzsa-10|]]]
- There is disagreement about the relative levels of difficulty posed by the use of various types of covers and by different object positions.[12[[home#cite_note-Lucas-11|]]]
- Controversy concerns whether or not object permanence can be achieved or measured without the motor acts that Piaget regarded as essential.[13[[home#cite_note-Moore-12|]]]
- The nature of inferences that can be made from the A-not-B error has been challenged. Studies that have contributed to this discussion have examined the contribution of memory limitations, difficulty with spatial localisation, and difficulty in inhibiting the motor act of reaching to location A on the A-not-B error.[10[[home#cite_note-Baillargeon-9|]]]
One criticism of Piaget's theory is that culture and education exert stronger influences on a child's development than Piaget maintained. These factors depend on how much practice their culture provides in developmental processes, such as conversational skills.[1[[home#cite_note-Santrock-0|]]]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_permanence
---
One of the most stressed points in this article is that even from a young age children will take into account someone's intention before naming an object. If they are told the item was made by accident then they are more likely to name the material it's made out of rather than what it represents. Toward the end of the article the authors raise the question of how children know to make sense of a creator's intent and end up relating it back to language and how adults give everything names. The reading from Bloom's book this week closely follows this article and elaborates on how autistic children struggle with these experiments because they dont how to understand someone else's intent when making an object.